Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> writes: > Had some trivial nitpick with it earlier, which is not a reason for the patch > to not go in as is. Pushed to master - commit > 625bdd64e5ea3327d4459b1ccccff8dab89129d0
Thanks for the review and push!
> mesa: Remove redundant if checks in _mesa_texstore_xx_xx() functions
>
> Never (?) been nominated to stable. Reviewed and merged in master - commit
> ef924f0de93accff2ea12dbd90cc3c1df794c8f5
That's odd. I wonder how it ended up on my list. Clearly some mistake I
made.
> glsl: Try vectorizing when seeing a repeated assignment to a channel.
>
> Reviewed and merged in master - commit
> ae2a03b5736037128fb071595717f300d5b3afd5
Not only merged in master. This one was included as part of the 10.1.1
release already. No wonder I wasn't seeing it appear on master after
that. ;-)
So that's another one that simply didn't belong on my list.
> wayland: Prevent zero sized wl_egl_window
>
> Not reviewed but already in master - commit
> c9d6898fdfd7e23306762af9bf2501a5bca1974
Ahah! It looks like this was a case where Ander was doing an
after-the-fact nomination of a commit that was already on master. But
since it was sent to the mesa-stable@ list as a patch, I mistakenly
thought it was a newly-proposed patch, so I was waiting for it to appear
on master.
I'll update the instructions for after-the-fact nominations to suggest
sending a sentence with a commit ID:
Please pick commit <id> to the stable branch.
rather than instructing people to send patches in this case.
And that should avoid the confusion.
> Hope that helps a bit.
Yes. Very much. Thanks for tracking down the details of each of
these. It will be nice to have a stable release with a nearly-empty list
of nominated-but-not-yet-applied patches.
-Carl
pgpmlDBwGDgJl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
